The electorate is online, and that's where the Conservative Party should be
asking for votes, writes Dr Sarah Wollaston.

I regularly hold public meetings around my Totnes constituency, which stretches from rural Dartmoor and the South Hams to urban Torbay. The audience may be two or two hundred but it's unwise to compete with TV blockbusters or rare glimpses of summer. Low public turnouts do not reflect a lack of interest in politics but simply that most people prefer to interact from their sofa or study. The scale of that can be overwhelming and, to put it in context, I've received just over 700 emails in the past fortnight alone on just two issues: Bovine TB and emissions targets. Very many of these were not bulk campaign letters but individual ones, joining the rising tide of letters and tweets on an astonishing range of subjects.

Participation in politics is not withering; people are out there in force, but they are online and that is where we should be asking for their votes.

In "safe" seats, which rarely if ever change hands at general elections, fewer than 50 people may get to choose who will represent over 50,000 voters, sometimes for decades to come. No wonder those MPs can then act with impunity and put personal ambition ahead of their constituency. Why shouldn't voters have a say in what type of Labour or Tory will be speaking on their behalf rather than the current tiny "selectorate" often under union or central office control.

Open primaries can restore a genuine choice of candidate but not if these selections only take place at public hustings. The fact is that "public" meetings no longer engage the public. The majority are out there interacting with every other other organisation online and that is where we should be also be asking another important question: "What type of Tory, Labour, Liberal Democrat or UKIP MP would you like to represent you if they win the next election?"

I was selected to stand for the Conservatives in Totnes through the first all-postal open primary. Everyone on the electoral register received a return postage paid ballot and information about the three candidates. They could also come to a public hustings to ask questions and vote in a more conventional format if they wished to do so. The local Party still had a voice in who made the final shortlist and were fair in offering a genuine choice. The problem with my selection was the cost. At around £40,000 it was too expensive for a wider roll out for any one party and even if all parties held them on a single day, I suspect the public would prefer that kind of money to be spent elsewhere. But what if that cost could be reduced?

We have secure electronic banking, so why not pilot the same for electronic voting? For candidate selection and local elections the benefits of widening participation and engagement outweigh the relatively small but important risks.

If such a system were open to all political parties that would finally open the doors to a more representative modern democracy. Coupled with real powers of recall, we would see an end to the scandal of MPs continuing to be paid until the next election despite stepping down for misconduct.

A pledge to move forward with open primaries was included in the coalition agreement and I have been told that by speaking out about the way that Westminster does business, I have scuppered the future of primaries. Wasn't it just the reason people selected me in the first place?